3 ms·
>If I see a "turd", I can regenerate that portion of the image until I'm happy. Assuming the API is free, and you have unlimited time, sure. But if the API cos
by dingnuts 3y ago
>If I see a "turd", I can regenerate that portion of the image until I'm happy.
Assuming the API is free, and you have unlimited time, sure. But if the API costs money for each generation, turd-free or full of turds, then at some point the cost of calling the API over and over and throwing away the turds starts to approach the cost -- both in time and money -- of just paying an artist to do it right in one iteration.
- rcoveson 3y agoYou're off by so many orders of magnitude that I'm forced to ask if you've looked into text-to-image generation prices versus artist commision prices, as well as completion timeframes. There are a lot of things that AI text-to-image just can't do, like generate really novel or even uncommon configurations of objects that look like they're still obeying the laws of our universe. Plenty of use cases remain, for now, where it's true you do want a human artist. ...But underneath the (expanding) umbrella of things that you can do with AI, you simply cannot compare the costs. Humans are just absurdly expensive and slow compared to GPUs.